Slashdot Mirror
Coffee Wards Off Cancer
Thorfinn.au writes "A new study indicates that heavy coffee drinking staves off deadly prostate cancer in men. Some 47,911 US men were surveyed over the period 1986 to 2008 for the research. During this time some 5,035 of them developed prostate cancer with 642 dying of it. According to analysis by investigating scientists, men who drank the most coffee (a fairly normal six-plus cups per day) had a 20 per cent lower risk of developing any kind of prostate cancer. If they did get prostate cancer, the java-swillers were much less likely to die from it than others: their risk of deadly prostate cancer was no less than 60 per cent lower than normal. Even less thirsty coffee drinkers who only put away one to three cups daily saw their chance of deadly prostate cancer fall by a useful 30 per cent."
According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
What doesn't? Then a week later the media is full of reports that it gives you cancer or vice versa..!
I was trying to get motivated to drink less of the stuff...
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/
http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/
It was in the Daily Mail!
A simple coffee jpg
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Hang on, nearly 10% of men in the study contracted prostate cancer?! That seems extraordinarily high doesn't it?
Coffee contains a known psychoactive stimulant, one which many people find pleasant. This makes it a drug. Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys). Therefore, coffee cannot possibly have any positive effects. Scientists! Get back to the lab and produce better results.
If I didn't have the coffee shakes, I wouldn't get any exercise at all.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
FTA:
coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.
and
We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer.
Show me biochemical interactions and a pathway of downregulation of metastatic prostate cancer cells and I'll buy your title.
That being said, I'm going to go have a couple cups of joe.
One route by which a false causation could occur here is through one of the most obvious effects of caffeine - its a diuretic. The summary could have just as easily said "Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?
It's painful everytime a horrible summary like this makes it through.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Agreed. Statistics is a harmfull toy in wrong hands. According to statistics, "in Vatican there are 2 Popes per square kilometer".
But causation does imply corrrelation. Anyhow - don't dismiss this work because of the design. It provides a clue to something that might have great bearing on a rather nasty condition. With this epidemiological data in hand, scientists can now look at devising better designed more expensive research that will determine the relationship, if any, such as the one you propose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
I don't like coffee. I've tried it, hated it, and have no intention of "learning to like it".
Fortunately there's another well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, which I enjoy quite a bit.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Either way, I'll drink a cup more of coffe, just to be safe, since even if their is no direct link, it seems to imply less prostate cancer in the futur...
That is, until further experimentation find something more precise.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
With coffee - broccoli, green/black/white tea, soybeans, red grapes, turmeric, rosemary, garlic, berries and eating a plant-based high-fiber diet helps as well to ward-off cancer.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Add to this: pissing often without any side effect, and you will see why even then coffee drinkers are cancer-free.
That's a myth; caffeine in the quantities you ingest it by drinking coffee, has very little diuretic effect at all.
Oh no... it's the future.
Between the coffee and the masturbation, my prostate is safe as houses. I've just read that my heart loves booze, too. Everything's amazing now!
--- Do you believe in the day?
So I should keep drinking coffee with my cigarettes, check.
Yes, if you ignore the decaf drinkers were the same as the normal coffee drinkers and hence the abstract finishes with: "The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."
Because actually solving problems is haaaaaard!
In all likelihood, drinking coffee is probably just correlated to working or living conditions that don't involve as much exposure to carcinogenic substances.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
What is first, the chicken or the egg? And to answer your correlation question, it does not matter, as long as you are the happy chicken, making a lot of eggs. Translated, it does not matter if the coffee or the life-style linked to the heavy coffee drinkers is the real reason, as long as the final result is cancer-free life.
One route by which a false causation could occur here is through one of the most obvious effects of caffeine - its a diuretic. The summary could have just as easily said "Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"
The study does point out that decaf coffee had the same effect as regular, so it's not the caffeine, or any effect of the caffeine, that does this.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
- from the linked-to abstract.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Oh look, someone else who knows the snappy phrase, but doesn't understand it. Actually, that subject sounds familiar... you're the one who always posts this same crap, aren't you?
There are three possibilities - coffee reduces prostate cancer risk, reduced prostate cancer risk increases coffee consumption or a third factor increases coffee consumption and decreases prostate cancer risk. While the third one is possible, the first is much more likely, and even the summary says "indicates."
Your complaint doesn't have anything to do with correlation; it's that "coffee" isn't a specific compound. While true, objecting to a preliminary study on those grounds is silly. If the effect is real someone will eventually chase down exactly what the mechanism is.
This would be an easy explication: heavy coffee drinkers do not die of prostate cancer because they die of something else
before.
According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.
Indeed. Here's a PDF of the paper which has all the actual numbers. It also lists in their conclusions several possible investigation routes:
Coffee contains chlorogenic acids (CGAs), which inhibit glucose absorption in the intestine and may favorably alter levels of gut hormones, which affect insulin response (1). Quinides, the roasting products of CGAs, inhibit liver glucose production in experimental models (1). Coffee also contains lignans, phytoestrogens with potent antioxidant activity, which may have positive effects on glucose handling (37). In humans, coffee drinking has been cross- sectionally associated with lower glucose levels after oral glucose loads and better insulin sensitivity (38–40). A cross-sectional study in women found a negative correlation between coffee consumption and circulating C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion (41). Insulin may promote tumor progression through the insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) receptors in cancer cells. Insulin levels have been associated with a greater risk of cancer progression or mortality among men diagnosed with prostate cancer (9–11), even though insulin has been unassociated (12,13) or inversely associated (14) with overall incidence. Coffee is a major source of antioxidants and is estimated to provide half of total antioxidant intake in several populations (2,3). Coffee has been associated with improved markers of inflammation in cross-sectional studies and in a recent trial (4,42,43). Inflammation is hypothesized to play a role in the development of prostate cancer through the generation of proliferative inflammatory atrophy lesions (15). Various dietary antioxidants may reduce inflammation and have been associated with lower risk of advanced prostate cancer (44,45). Coffee drinking may be associated with increased sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) and total testosterone levels (5). One study in Greek men found a positive association with estradiol levels but not with SHBG or testosterone (6), whereas another found no association between coffee and sex hormones in young Greek men (7). Coffee has been consistently associated with higher SHBG levels in women (46–49). Sex hormones play a role in prostate cancer, though the relationships between circulating levels within normal ranges and risk have been difficult to elucidate. It has been hypothesized that although testosterone is necessary for the initial development of prostate cancer, it may limit progression of the disease (50,51). A pooled analysis of 18 prospective studies found an inverse association between SHBG levels and prostate cancer risk (51).
My work here is dung.
Even without caffeine, extra fluids will make you piss more. Constantly cleaning out your urinary tract sounds like a more feasible mechanism of action than some unidentified chemical in coffee that isn't common in other parts of the human diet. Decaf coffee isn't a valid control, water is.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Hey! That's not how we do things in AMERICA! In America we have one giant plastic cup of "expresso" (really? you go overboard with the superlatives but don't even know how to spell it?) in the morning, a second big giant plastic cup of espresso in the afternoon, and top it off with a Monster energy drink in the evening! Some people use "5 hour energy" instead, but that's for WUSSES because those bottles are small and small things are for WUSSES!!!!
Okay, seriously, i can't tell if the original statement was sarcastic or just totally out of touch. Six cups a day? I've lost track of the number of people in my office who have some method of making their own coffee in one cup batches (usually a french press or a one cup filter) bring in the their own coffee rather than using the office supply and have one or two cups a day at most.
Or maybe i'm the one who's out touch, but i suspect the people who go to Starbucks for breakfast lunch and dinner are like all stereotypes, seen a lot more in movies, TV and bad jokes than they are in real life.
(Although what's with the "dirty water" as opposed to "strong coffee" thing? The problem with Starbucks isn't that they make it too weak, the problem is that they burn the beans to a crisp. Weakness is about the last thing i'd complain about with their coffee.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I'd think 6 cups a day is pretty average for many coffee drinkers, not just Americans. I'm in the UK, and certainly in my workplace we have a round of coffee/tea about once an hour, so 6 mugs of coffee a day is pretty typical. There's nothing wrong with using it as a replacement for water, it does the job just fine, and tastes better.
Oh no... it's the future.
Well what the hell is it in the stuff that sends me running to the bathroom every half hour then? And stinking of coffee to boot.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
That doesn't mean we don't enjoy the finer coffees (I will obsess over a French-pressed dark roast Sumatran), it just means there's a place for both. I'm a beer snob too, but if I'm out fishing on a canoe in the Texas heat I have no shame reaching for a cold and refreshing Keystone Light. I'm not out there to pontificate on the malts used or the varietal of hops, I'm out there to get drunk on a boat, and you can't argue the utility of cheap canned beer.
Three times is enemy action. Coffee has so many widely reported health benefits, it makes me wonder if some coffee growers association has discovered that it's killing people.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Not to mention that they say decaf works too, so it could hardly be attributed to the caffeine.
Dilbert RSS feed
Disappointing that they didn't track hot tea drinkers as well. It would be interesting to know if this was associated with generally being better hydrated, or something specific to coffee. // just switched to green tea from coffee
Well I suppose I should go get some stock in Starbucks.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
Coffee left on a burner goes right to shit.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Is my sarcasm detector busted, or did that make no sense whatsoever?
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
But if that is the case, it's still causation; coffee does reduce the chances of prostate cancer, even if any other liquid mainly composed of water does the same. Causation doesn't mean it's the only cause.
Dilbert RSS feed
Another study published on Breast Cancer Research claims it also helps against a form of aggressive breast cancer.
- "Every demand is a prison, and wisdom is only free when it asks nothing." Sir Betrand Russell
Because the subsequent scientific medicine cost money and times and that the later paper aren't nearly as news-worthy, because you never find a Cure For Cancer after all?
And maybe because cancer being cancer, there are lots of parameters you can't quantify precisely so you ends up forced to use statistic to get some result?
Statistics may be overrated, but it doesn't mean they are worthless or meaningless. They work, provided you don't do anything stupid with them.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
No, because it being coffee is not the cause. The statement 'coffee prevents prostate cancer' contains the implicit assumption that coffee does so more than control. This may seem nitpicky, but summarising scientific research requires fairly precise use of language.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Maybe that you are drinking a large amount of fluid has something to do with it?
Drink the same amount of water in the same time period... Lookie same effect.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Agreed; this is a proper cup of coffee.
In fact, there's a reason why in Europe the Americano is a diluted expresso cup.
Dilbert RSS feed
Actually that wouldn't be false causation, since drinking actually does cause pissing. It would just mean the result could be broadened to people who drink anything else that isn't too harmful. (Virtually all "causes" are indirect if you break things down enough.)
I can't stand Starbucks' insipid brand after spending the last couple of years going to a local place where the coffee actually tastes like coffee (And almost never like urine.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I drink clean, fresh water to survive.
And no where in the summary, article or paper (OK, I didn't read the paper, but I seriously doubt it would make such a ridiculous claim) is it said that "Drinking coffee prevents cancer". The title kinda does if you read it that way, but a three word catchy title is hardly the "meat" of anything. All that's being claimed is a significant statistical correlation between drinking coffee and a reduced risk for this particular type of cancer.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
There's a difference. If drinking coffee really did reduce the risk of prostate cancer, it would make sense to encourage men to drink coffee. If it's just that people who drink coffee are at lower risk for some other reason, then encouraging men to drink more coffee will not reduce their risk of cancer.
Apparently busted. If you actually bother to read any decent medical journal, you will find out that there was, and will never be a 100% proven correlation between drinking coffee, and less cancer risk for example. NEVER. All that this statistic does, is just that, statistic.
Yeah, because I want to program with a language that makes my piss smell even more appealing than it already does. Right.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Oddly enough I watched a documentary on Gerson Therapy for cancer and coffee enemas were highly recommended to fight cancer. I'm not saying I buy into it and there was a lot of other less odd treatments Dr Gerson pushed for, but it is interesting...
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
That was my point actually. Maybe it is not the coffee, but the lifestyle, which side effect is drinking more coffee.....
Oh, I'm sorry. I prefer hot American coffee (no sugar, lots of milk) to hot tea. But, obviously my preferences offend you and I should stop drinking what *I* like and drink what *you* like. It's not like I'm over there stealing your cup of "expresso" (Ah, a coffee snob who can't even spell their own favored drink) and replacing it with a Venti Iced Caramel Frappaccino. I like a nice espresso in a coffee house sometimes too, but its not what gets me up in the morning.
As caffeine is a diuretic, coffee does not help with hydration.
Quoting Linus Torvalds:
"So every time I see some piece of medical research saying that caffeine is good for you, I high-five myself. Because I'm going to live forever."
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/08/13744-supplied.html
Your guess as to what the correlation is caused by seems pretty spot on. However, it really bugs me the way people bitch about cancer research. I know three people who had cancer who do not have cancer now. One breast cancer survivor (at age 22!), one prostate, and one leukemia. There is no silver bullet for cancer, and complaining about the lack of a cure is the same as complaining about a lack of cure for viruses. From what I can tell there is a lot of solid research on cancer, and a lot of health tips to avoid cancer the same way there are health tips to avoid every kind of malady.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Heard about this on NPR this morning, and the researcher said there was no difference between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee in the study. Both produced the same effect.
So if you don't like the stimulant-ness of coffee, drink decaf for the same protective effect.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Coffee grown in USA Sucks... Go Columbian and you will feel the Tweek.
I recall the specifics of this study when it began. What they already knew, but hadn't proven yet: While drinking a cup of regular joe provided some colo-rectal/prostate (and testicular) cancer-preventing benefit to men, the anti-carcinogens were in greatest abundance when it was freshly-ground, freshly-brewed, and served piping hot. The scientist I saw on the news went on to say, he thought it was in the surface-oils as they turned to steam. So now I breathe my coffee while I drink it.
Well, the abstract doesn't tell us what comparisons they made other than more coffee drunk vs less, but given that it's a Harvard study I'll extend the trust that they had decent control groups and biostatistics (and I'm not saying that just because I'm all doe-eyed about a big name school, I'm saying that because Harvard has probably the best public health program in the world).
Tea would be a pretty poor control, however; when testing a biochemical cocktail for health effects, when you want a control that measures hydration and fluid intake why on earth would you use a different biochemical cocktail rather than controlling statistically for overall hydration or having some sort of water-drinking control group? How do we know that tea doesn't have a whole host of different effects as opposed to coffee that could totally boink the study data? In fact, it probably does.
Yes, I'm sure a Doctor of Science at the Harvard School of Medicine, publishing in the Journal of the Nancer Cancer Institute, has never taken a Stats 101 class, let alone attended even the first day of said class...
I'm never going to sleep, either.
Have gnu, will travel.
Is it only masturbation or do sex and masturbation work equally well?
The way this is phrased looks like an incomplete story. Why wouldn't sex work just as well as masturbation? What plausible reason would there be that wanking your doodle by hand works better than wanking it in a soft, pleasant vagina?
I'd assume this was a survey and data mining exercise, that they didn't assign people randomly into groups and tell them to drink specific amounts of coffee. Since the abstract doesn't mention it they may not have asked people if they drink tea or not, so the tea drinkers would be distributed among every group (some drinking coffee in different amounts as well, some drinking no coffee). It would have been interesting to see that information mined separately. I don't see how it would have muddied the water in terms of what they had set out to do originally.
You deserve a medal, or something ;) AGREED! Loudly so!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And we should all run out to buy his book to figure out his 'ideal diet', right? He's pushing it right there on his website. Smells like a quack appealing to popular pseudoscientific nonsense in order to make a quick buck to me.
keeps the finger away!
The problem with decaf is that since it lacks the positive reinforcements of the perk and taste it is less likely one will drink 6 cups.
past studies have hinted that paper filters may remove some benefits from coffee. But others have claimed brown paper filters remove toxins (but bleached ones add dioxins). I wonder if this study used brewed or unfiltered coffee?
Does the roast matter? I like dark roasts. One could speculate roasting could affect the outcome
1) perhaps roasting solublizes or activates the "good" chemicals
2) perhaps roasting destroys the good stuff
3) perhaps, like frying, roasting also creates carcinogens. Just perhaps not ones that impact the prostate.
Maybe the reason for the 20% decline is that they died of something else caused by coffee (e.g. extreme sports, excessive sitting, being shot by jealous due to the libido enhancment of coffee) or pehaps they received treatment for something else cause by the coffee (kidney dialysis) that had some preventative side effect on Prostate cancer.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?.
Well yes and no. If Coffee intake is what promotes the alternative lifestyle rather than the converse then increasing coffee intake will be beneficial. even if it is just the affect of drinking 6 cups of hot water-- it's still easier to persuade people to drink a stimulant than to drink hot water (otherwise that would be a habit by now.)
Coffee increase libido. So maybe coffee drinkers just jerk off or have sex more often. Does this matter to the conclusion? it's still coffee causing the behavior change.
Your point is that perhaps chronic masturbation causes a thirst for coffee.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm interested in what's causing such a high amount of prostate cancer among us men.
Is it the processed sugar they're dumping in their coffee/food? Pesticides, herbicides from our produce?
I wish we could find the multi-determinent causes faster =/
Is any one else terrified that over 10% of the men in the study developed prostate cancer?
Some 47,911 US men were surveyed over the period 1986 to 2008 for the research. During this time some 5,035 of them developed prostate cancer with 642 dying of it.
Woh, the incidence rate of prostate cancer in US men is 1 in 10? Why does the CDC show the rate at more like 150 in 100k? Or did they take some extremely high risk group?
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Shoot...yeah, you're right. I had a weird feeling I was missing something.
Note that this was an observational study, not an experimental study, and so the risk of counfounders is high. For example, it is conceivable that people who develop prostate cancer then lose their taste for coffee even before being diagnosed. For years, the cigarette industry took advantage of the limitations of observational studies by arguing that an unidentified genetic factor made people want to smoke, and also put them at risk for developing lung cancer, but that the smoking and the cancer weren't related. A well-designed experimental study could randomly assign people to drink or not drink coffee, and then determine the incidence of prostate cancer in each group. Obviously, designing a similar study for cigarettes would be unethical given the weight of evidence that smoking is bad for you.
The trick is to only read the studies that fit with your lifestyle.
All we need now is a study to show that beer cures cancer!
Who died of prostate cancer and considered coffee and cigarettes to be "food."
Caffeine addicts with excessive consumption are also at higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias that could cause sudden death
Interesting point, that. I personally would much rather die a sudden death than suffer through years of cancer.
AccountKiller
Well that's cool. Now could someone find a beverage that reduces the risk of leukemia? :(
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Well, somehow the summary indicated that 6 cups a day is "relatively normal" while also claiming only the guys who drink the most coffee get to those levels. Seems like it contradicts itself - they can't be the guys who are drinking the most and also the guys who are drinking normal levels.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
A measuring cup is 8 oz
A coffee cup is often, but not always, 6 oz.
The cup on my desk with which I use to drink coffee is something in the range of 12 oz.
So when I saw 6 cups of coffee intake, my eyes lit up. Partly from the cup of coffee I just drank, but also at the thought of how much time would be spent in the bathroom over the course of those 6 cups.
I applaud your caution, but I lost about 50 pounds following that sort of advice, and feel a lot better, and have kept it off easily. His book is probably the most scientifically based one out there... YMMV.
"Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss"
http://books.google.com/books?id=CX8huSU0n8AC
Getting a good blender and making green smoothies helped a lot too.
http://greensmoothierevolution.com/
Dr. Fuhrman's approach can cure most type 2 diabetes too, but I doubt you will believe that either: :-)
"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
But that is more and more common knowledge, except among most doctors and CEOs of drug companies:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html
His approach can also reverse most heart disease... Although others can do that too, as well. Just Google on reverse heart disease.
Is Dr. Fuhrman's approach perfect? No, I think it could be improved in a couple of ways. For example, I think he is a bit low on Vitamin D and quite a bit low on iodine. Others on that:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.iodine4health.com/
Iodine especially is a potentially big issue because if you eliminate salt and dairy as he suggests, those are two major sources of iodine in the US diet, and you need to replace that with a multivitamin or eating seaweed or other things. If you were under his care, he would no doubt check for that, but for someone following his advice from a book (myself included) it is easy to mess up on iodine. I brought that to his attention through his forum but he was somewhat dismissive of it, sadly.
I also think Dr. Fuhrman could prioritize his approach a bit better, and also that there may be issues about metabolic types and individual biochemistry that may come into play. It's also not clear if salt is quite as bad as he says it is.
In general, I think he has done a great job, but no one knows everything about such a complex topic. And his active practice probably also limits his time for additional study. I also agree with you that financial conflicts (he sells branded food products, even though he gives some of the proceeds to nutritional research) muddy the water. But that is also a big issue in our society in general, and we need something like some mix of a gift economy or basic income or 3D printing and/or great central planning to move beyond it.
But overall, he's probably one of the best out there, after having read tons of stuff by different people in my own quest for health for myself and my family.
Dr. Andrew Weil has better holistic advice, but not quite so good nutrition advice. He is also more knowledgeable on herbal remedies:
http://www.drweil.com/
Dr. Mark Hyman probably has better overall advice about autism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
We are in the midst of a revolution in nutritional knowledge and the connection to health, but sadly most people are in denial about it. And there are, as you say, so many vested interests and conflicts of interest that it is hard to know who to trust.
But as I quote here from Marcia Angell, the problem may be even worse in mainstream science:
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Is it just me or does there seem to be a serious coffee lobby / PR organization at work here? No exaggeration, every three months for the last couple decades I've seen some story about the benefits of coffee on health. It is clearly legal because it is a workers' drug. It keeps people focused during work, while leaving them slightly frazzled afterwards so that they have no energy for anything else.
Did anyone read the articles on this? The benefit was found for those who drank SIX cups or more a day. Jumping off a tall building also reduces prostate cancer - by 100%.
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
thesecoffeedrinkersweremorelikelytodevelopheartconditionsanddiefromaheartattack *sip* butthatwonthappentomeithink *sip* imeanihavenoreasonwhatsoevertofearaheartattack *sip*
Thus, I have begun wearing assless chaps to help bring recognition to the problem.
several times a day reduces risk of cancer? :-)
http://nwbagpipes.com/
This is not a bad study, but the conclusions need testing via something many people call SCIENCE. It will be necessary to get some subjects and feed them coffee. As is, this is a fun exercise in statistics.
Well, yeah, except that scientific research very often starts with statistical studies like this, followed by more focused studies on the things that turn out to be correlated.
As someone (I've forgotten who) said, a correlation may not mean causation, but it is Nature's way of saying "Hey, look over here; there's something interesting going on that you should look into."
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
... that correlation is not necessarily causation. To demonstrate causation they would have to follow up with a clinical trial that eliminates confounding variables. At this point all they have is a hypothesis.
Yup. It's yet another case of the observation that the most important part of a scientific paper is the paragraph near the end that states "Further research is needed".
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
b/c "Coffee is for closers!"
- Alec Baldwin
This headline is grossly misleading, this isn't what the study says at all. Correlation does not imply causation! This is an "epidemiological study" meaning it looks for statistically significant correlations between different factors (such as coffee and prostate cancer). In many (probably most) cases these correlations are either due to an external factor not considered, or are just a random statistical artifact (the phrase statistically significant is actually relatively meaningless, and about one out of 20 hypotheses will prove statistically significant in epidemiological studies due to random chance). What if coffee drinkers get less cancer because they're more likely to drink coffee instead of another beverage directly causing the cancer? What if these people are drinking more coffee because they have a hormonal problem that reduces energy levels, but also happens to lower cancer risk? I can go on forever here with plausible alternate explanations, but my point is that this observed correlation doesn't imply that drinking more coffee will prevent prostate cancer! When will science journalists and the general public learn that epidemiology only generates hypotheses, but doesn't test them? Every time I see an epidemiological correlation in the news it's presented as conclusive evidence that you should do x, and then a week later there's another study saying you should do the exact opposite for a different reason! My takeaway conclusion from nearly all news headlines saying x is good or bad for you is that we need to do a better job teaching people about statistics, experimental design, and critical scientific thinking in school.
So, what was your point in responding to me originally? I was annoyed that the summary tried to paint a causal relationship between coffee and cancer when all there is is correlation right now, and then your response was it doesn't matter why there was a correlation, only that there was less cancer.
But that's dumb. It does matter why. You cannot take this article to mean drinking coffee will reduce your risk of cancer. You have to take it as men that do happen to drink more coffee are statistically less likely to get cancer. We need to figure out why in case there is a potential cancer treatment lurking somewhere in that correlation between the two.
But if you jump straight to a causal relationship you could end up doing more harm than good. Wasn't there a medicine that correlated with a lower risk of heart disease in a large study that, upon closer study, turned out to increase risk of that heart disease?
That's why I thought you were being sarcastic. Your response is so counter productive I actually thought you were making a joke that I missed since you are essentially arguing that correlation is enough and we shouldn't look for the actual cause. If that's not what you intended to say, then you worded your response poorly.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
My point is more along the lines of: if coffee intake is a side effect of some other behavior that highly reduces the chances of cancer, drinking coffee alone could later be found to increase your chances of getting prostate cancer. That could be the case.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Unless their drinking coffee pretty much always leads to the activity that is responsible for the reduction in cancer.
Non-coffee example: There's an apocryphal IT story about a man who called IT support because his keyboard worked fine while he was sitting, but when he stood up, the "G" and "H" keys would type the other letter (press "G", get an "H" and vice versa). Tech support tries to help the guy on the phone, but gets nowhere. Tech gets dispatched to the guy's work area, and has the guy demonstrate. Sure enough, when the man sits at his desk, everything works as expected. When he stands up to type, he gets an "H" when he presses the "G" key, and vice versa. The tech has the guy demonstrate several times, and finally figures it out: when the guy is sitting down, he's touch typing and knows where the keys are by feel. However, when he's standing, he's hunting and pecking...and the offending keys are swapped on his keyboard: the sequence is a-s-d-f-h-g-j, etc. on his keyboard, rather than a-s-d-f-g-h-j, etc. So when the guy is standing, he sees where the two keys are on the keyboard, and visually directs his finger to the incorrectly labeled key.
If you will *always* perform the action that leads to the cancer risk reduction when drinking coffee, then in practical terms, it doesn't really matter if coffee is really the cause as long as you like to drink coffee*. However, it might matter to people who don't like to drink coffee but could perform the action that causes the benefit sans coffee.
* except for technical accuracy and pedantic reasons.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Please don't lump all of us Americans into such a stereotype. Personally, I really enjoy a good espresso. The problem, however, is that it is pretty difficult to find a GOOD espresso stateside -- it's almost always burned and bitter.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Personally, I try to avoid smelling the waste byproducts of digestion that my body produces as much as possible, but hey...whatever floats your boat.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
My dad, who didn't drink coffee at all BTW, died five years ago of a massive aneurysm. My grandmother (mom's mom, not his mom, fortunately) was with him when it happened, and from her description, it probably wasn't a bad way to go. On the other hand, a friend of my family's died last year from cancer, after a long, protracted, struggle. Two examples do not constitute a rigorous study, but with the data available to me, I'll take cardiovascular over cancer every single time, thanks. Especially since a good exercise program and a healthy diet can go a long ways towards maintaining cardiovascular health, which I would expect to minimize the downside to "being jacked-up on caffeine" (any health experts care to chime in?).
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
My doctor last year advised me to stop doing caffeinated coffee, both to lower my blood pressure and to slow down prostate swelling. So if I reject decaf looks like my choice is between increased odds of prostate cancer and increased odds of needing Flomax. Yippee.
Coffee nerds measure cups different than normal people. So what is it, six ounce cups, or eight ounce CUPS?
Bad news for us biological machines that convert caffeine into code:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/03/14/peak-coffee-could-mean-a-drowsy-future-nyt/
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Disclaimer: I'm one of those 6-cups-a-day men, and 99.9999% of it is regular... but I will say that it's nearly impossible to tell good decaf from the regular kind. Home roasted decaf beans: fine. Sanka: not so much.
The problem, with caffeine and so many other things is not what researchers are finding. The problem is self-proclaimed "experts" who make pronouncements based on... nothing in particular beyond their own prejudices. Dietary advice is a classic example. For years, we were told that if we wanted to control our weight, avoid starchy foods. Then, although there was no evidence for it, we were told that no, the way to remain thin was radically cut dietary fat. Now we're again being told that the key is to limit carbohydrates.
You see the same thing with both alcohol and caffeine, but for a different reason: drugs, you see, are baaaaad. Even though, as the GP says, most studies have shown that coffee consumption is on balance, good for you, there's tremendous resistance to this idea. Similarly with alcohol - study after study has shown that light to moderate alcohol consumption, good for most people (strong positive effects on cardiovascular health, but slight increases in upper GI cancer - and if you have problems with addiction... definitely avoid alcohol). But there's still a very, very strong reluctance to actually recommend alcohol consumption to anyone. Because drugs are, by definition, bad. Even when they're good for you.
See here:
It is axiomatic that drugs are baaaaad. Even when they're good for you.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the positive effect was about the same for decaf. It's thought that the good effects mostly come from antioxidants in coffee.
In fact, it's almost certain.
However, in the meantime, it's less fun to be Aleksandr Isaevi Solenicyn and more fun to be Too Much Coffee Man. Witness:
http://www.google.com/search?q=too+much+coffee+man&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Z0TUTYXoMdLAgQeD3Nku&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=999&bih=462
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I think the only place in the U.S. they really grow it is Puerto Rico or Hawaii , which is a low a altitude robusto coffee. All th real good stuff, arabica, is grown at high altitudes. I like Mexican beans, they seem to a slightly nutty but balanced flavor when just shy of a medium roast.
Statistics show drinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate juice everyday prevents cancer
Slashdot = Sarcasm
See! Another Java related success story! ;-)
This just in, tuna fish is horrible for your health, throw out every single can of tuna off your shelf! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjpOfHKss7o Oh, did i say tuna? I meant coffee of course. Yeah.
On average people have one boob per person.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
yes, that is true. Thanks for being informative, but I still like coffee being imported directly from Columbia.
so i guess i getting prostate cancer.
lame.
Be seeing you...
Or perhaps you could eat a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans and get the right amount of vitamin D, and get enough of some other key nutrients like Omega-3s and iodine, and quite possibly put off both cancer and heart disease until you are in your second century? :-) Although other things matter in life too, friends, family, a good night's sleep, meaningful work, living in a health-promoting community, a connection to the infinite, and so on...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Or perhaps you could eat a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans and get the right amount of vitamin D, and get enough of some other key nutrients like Omega-3s and iodine...
And die early from worrying about all that crap? That does not sound like fun at all. ...a connection to the infinite...
I think I have that. I teach calculus and set theory fairly often.
AccountKiller
"And die early from worrying about all that crap?"
How about have tons more energy and lots less health issues that otherwise might slow you down? :-)
But you're right that too much anxiety about food can be its own sets of healthy problems...
"I teach calculus and set theory fairly often."
I like to phrase it that way because different connections work for different people. I'm glad you've found something that works for you -- hopefully you have some time for contemplating integrals in the sunshine to get your vitamin D. :-)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.